Poor Olivine

Roy C. Lackey · 03 Dec 2002, 21:29 · from urth-v0212.mbox · original

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: "Roy C. Lackey" <rclackey at stic.net>
Subject: (urth) Poor Olivine
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 15:29:56 -0600
Message-ID: <urth-v0212-2352 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0212/2352.txt.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

>>Crush wrote before:
>>If one femchem was as good as another to Hammerstone, why did he leave
>>Marble and have the child they were making broken up when she revealed
that
>>she was Magnesia?
>
>Roy responded:
>I probably shouldn't even ask, but **where, in or out of the whorl, did you
>get such an idea???**

Crush wrote:
>Call me crazy but Marble must have received some sort of information,
>between her warning that she would become an abandoned woman and her
>declaration that she **was** an abandoned woman. Since Marble was
>**abandoned** then Hammerstone has left her. In terms of logic, that is a
>"consistency by equivalence". The only information I can see that could
have
>led her to that conclusion is what Mucor said - channeling Hammerstone the
>same way she spied on Potto in the house of Blood. The only interpretation
I
>can derive from Mucor's words is that he is having another soldier "break"
>the child they said they would start on immediately (at their wedding).

To go from Marble's notion of abandonment to the destruction of a child
requires a leap in logic that leaves me in the dust. I can only conclude
that . . . hell, I don't know what to think. You must not have read the SS
series, for one thing. Let me state flat out that no such thing happened to
the child. Fact.

>Crush responds:
>I suppose its **possible** to play with the text to allow this, but it is
>hard to square that with Hammerstone's assertion that he lost track of her
>during his last 74 year nap. That pretty firmly suggests a change in the
>status of their relationship. If he didn't know where she was during the
>entire voyage and then he didn't know where she was after, he can hardly
say
>he lost track of her.

And if Moly had been at Sun Street from Day One, and nowhere else, then he
would have known **exactly** where to find her. He didn't know. That's why
he said: "Maybe I should've gone looking for Moly."

-Roy

--=20

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net